Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new context: a per-document-type permission check and the pagination mechanism (nextCursor when another page exists). It stops short of saying what the list is scoped to (account vs workspace) or the failure mode when permission is denied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the scoping/enumeration constraint is front-loaded before the return-value sentence. Nothing is repeated verbatim from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a small read-only list tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the valid operations, the permission gate, and the shape of results. The only remaining gap is the scope of the underlying collection and behavior on permission failure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, detail and the operation enum are already fully documented; the description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond restating the enum choices. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the parameter work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (list designs) and enumerates the three supported document types, which is more than the title conveys. Minor terminology drift between the tool name ('document templates') and description ('designs'), and no explicit separation from siblings is offered, though no sibling clearly overlaps this function.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns it must supply one of three operations and that permission is checked for that type. There is no when-not guidance, no prerequisites about what happens if the permission check fails, and no mention of alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.